Despite being told the fact that working up to our meeting on Wednesday with President Dennison we would be able to work with Vice President Foley, Provost Engstrom, and Head Legal Counsel David Aronofsky on drafting a conditional letter of support* for the DSP, SESJ received word via email stating that
"After your refusal to leave the building yesteday requiring your arrest I am not going to work with you at all any further unless and until President Dennison requests it. Deliberate violations of the law, even for causes one sincerely believes in, do not warrant University of Montana cooperation and I do not spend time with lawbreakers when I have plenty of other work to do."
David Aronofsky
UM Legal Counsel
*A conditional letter of support would state that the University of Montana supports the morals and principles of the Designated Suppliers Program and when the program receives a positive letter from the Department of Justice stating that the DSP doesn't break any anti-trust laws the University of Montana will participate. This is not a legally binding document. This letter would also allow UM to be part of DSP working group meetings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This an oddly popular opinion considering its lack of thoroughness. David seems to make no distinction between criminal and civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience has been used for ages to break laws in a non-criminal manner for that which is just. I think it's a silly simplistic tactic to refuse to discuss because someone is "breaking the law". That is, breaking the letter of the law. But, ultimately not the spirit assuming that law is in place to make the world better.
I see a contradiction when the administration does business with companies that break laws (both legislative and moral laws) criminally (trying to get away with it and genuinely hurting people) yet refuses to talk to people who are working for so clearly something good in the world and doing it in a good way.
Maybe this practice of choosing certain groups to work with has led the university to its current apparently bad understanding of that which is good and that which is bad?
Post a Comment